Unconsented sleepout on property

Hi all, we've recently purchased our first home which is very exciting, after a year of searching, 60+ open homes, and 3 previous attempts at buying.

The house has a storage shed that has 'evolved' into a teenage sleepout. It is unconsented as a sleepout, which we knew about when purchasing.

Ideally we'd like to get rid of it and then move a prefab dwelling onto that spot, less than 55 sq metres in size so it comes within the Upper Hutt City Council rules on this.

Has anyone had any experience with these secondary dwelling types?

Am assuming we will need consent to removed the 'storage shed', and then consent to get a pre-fab dwelling onto the property, but I just wanted to hear other people's stories on this type of work first.

Are there any other rules that I should know about, apart from it having to be less than 55 sq metres in size, and it only being able to be used as famly accomodation?

Also if anyone has had any good experiences with any pre-fab companies in the Wellington region (or bad!) I would love to hear.

Thank you.

Edited to add: There is a land covenant in place which says we cannot erect or move onto the property a caravan, hut or shed to be used as a dwelling.

However, if we wanted to build a family flat, which by definition is:

"a self-contained dwelling unit no more than 55m2 in floor area, on the same property and in the same ownership as the principal dwelling (and not leased to another party), for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation. For clarity, a family flat which exceeds the 55m2 limit will be considered as a dwelling and will be assessed against the appropriate rules"

Then surely we can do this, as long as it was less than 55 m2 in floor area, so therefore wouldn't be counted as a dwelling, and therefore we would not be breaching the land covenant?

But it still needs to be consented because its a conversion from a storage shed to a dwelling, according to our lawyer.

Also, I probably should've added - there is a land covenant in place which says we cannot erect or move onto the property a caravan, hut or shed to be used as a dwelling.

However, if we wanted to build a family flat, which by definition is:

"a self-contained dwelling unit no more than 55m2 in floor area, on the same property and in the same ownership as the principal dwelling (and not leased to another party), for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation. For clarity, a family flat which exceeds the 55m2 limit will be considered as a dwelling and will be assessed against the appropriate rules"

Then surely we can do this, as long as it was less than 55 m2 in floor area, so therefore wouldn't be counted as a dwelling, and therefore we would not be breaching the land covenant?

and only the advice of; lawyers, council and people who have done it before

has any value

so i'll stfu now;o)

I'm just trying to just work out what we can and cannot do. If it's in breach of the covenant, then we will not do it, obviously.

But if the covenant says "you can't build a dwelling", but then upper hutt city council says that a dwelling has a different definition to a family flat, then why could we not build a family flat? It would be used for visiting family and friends.

I have consulted the lawyer on this matter, and she said she wasn't sure how the covenant vs council consent could impact on one another. Who gets the final say, in the end? the development company behind the covenant, or the council? It sounds like quite an unusual one if our lawyer could not confirm either way.

Thanks for the link. Very thankful that none of those crazy strict covenants apply to us!

I'm still not trying to breach a covenant in the hope I can just get away with it though... I'm assuming that the covenant was put in place so people couldn't put multiple large dwellings on their properties. Which makes sense. I'm trying to get to the bottom of how the land covenant defines a 'dwelling', and if this is the same definition as the council's definition. Because, if it is the same, then building something under 55 m2 doesn't count as a dwelling, and therefore would not be at all in breach of the covenant. But I just can't seem to get to the bottom of it, and as I don't want to break the rules, I won't be doing anything until I have confirmed what I can and cannot do.

I have googled the name of the development company and cannot find any trace of them to contact them. I’ve asked the lawyer to dig around again to get some contact details as there seem to be none online!

The house has a storage shed that has 'evolved' into a teenage sleepout. It is unconsented as a sleepout, which we knew about when purchasing.

Lateral thinking time:
You have a shed which is nothing but a shed.
A previous owner may have used it as a sleepout - but it's still a shed.
No consent needed.
Just get rid of it.
As you would any other shed.

But it still needs to be consented because its a conversion from a storage shed to a dwelling, according to our lawyer.

Stop using the word sleepout/dwelling.
You have a shed.
Strip out anything that that might suggest it's being live in.
Then remove your shed.